Log in

"Post your contents, writings, articles, info-graphics, and more on spacenab."
sign up with facebook
Create a new post

Agency and Discrimination Law Week 5 Midterm


Agency and Discrimination Law Week 5 Midterm

Buy Now From Below:


1. TCO B. The “public comment” period closes on an OSHA proposed regulation, and your business had filed a public comment against the proposed regulation explaining that hnj  j b   the regulation would not fix the problem that OSHA was trying to remedy, that the regulation would cost more than the problem itself, and that the regulation was a tax, not a safety change. List two arguments available to your company that may succeed in overturning the regulation. (Points : 15)


2. TCO F. When Vanna White sued Samsung for appropriation and under the Lanham Act, she won her case under the California common law right of publicity claim and under the Lanham Act. List the eight Sleekcraft factors that are required to prove a Lanham Act complaint. (Points : 15)


3. (TCO C) Bud Johnson owns a General Motors dealership in Pierre, South Dakota. At the request and expense of General Motors, Bud traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, for purposes of the demonstration of a new vehicle called the Roughrider, designed to compete against the current offering of SUVs. Bud went to the proving grounds in the desert around Phoenix and spent a day watching the vehicle demonstrations. Bud and other dealers drove the vehicles, and much dust resulted from their driving. A few weeks later, Bud became ill with flu-like symptoms. He was finally diagnosed as having coccidioidomycosis or “valley fever.” Valley fever is a disease well known to Arizona residents, and most have had it if they have lived there over 10 years. Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents.



Bud became quite ill and brought suit against the car manufacturer that invited him for its failure to warn him about the valley fever phenomenon before he came out to the testing grounds. Answer the following questions, and use cases and theories from the text to support your arguments:



Was there negligence in the failure of General Motors to warn Bud? (15 points)



Discuss all defenses General Motors may have. (15 points)



Does strict liability in torts apply to this situation? Why or why not? (10 points) (Points : 40)


TCO D: Barney and his 16-year-old son BamBam are riding in Fred’s car. Fred had taken some prescription medication that morning that stated on the bottle, “Warning, may cause drowsiness.” The truck in front of them suffers a blow-out, and swerves uncontrollably. The tire remnants fly into the road, Fred swerves and hits a car to his left. He avoids hitting the truck with the blow-out but suffers damage to the left side of his car.  BamBam hits his head on the side of the car, getting a concussion and permanently losing the sight in his right eye. Fred has state law required auto insurance with the minimum policy limits.

Fred’s wife, Wilma, immediately calls Betty, BamBam’s mom, and apologizes when she finds out about BamBam losing his eye. Wilma says to Betty, “Please don’t worry. We will pay for anything the insurance doesn’t cover, including the loss of BamBam’s sight and anything else he needs to recover and live a normal life.” Betty sobs and says, “You are too good to us. We can’t accept that.” Wilma says, “Of course you can.” Betty cries harder and says, “Thank you so much but (unintelligible)” and hangs up.

Fred and Wilma own a house worth $450,000, a car worth $20,000, a full-size T. rex skeleton for which a museum has offered $200,000 in the past, and some stocks and bonds worth $700,000.

A lawsuit ensues and a judgment against Fred and for BamBam is entered for $300,000. The insurance company paid their cap of $250,000, leaving $50,000 remaining due. Fred and Wilma immediately pay BamBam $50,000. Further, Wilma buys a designer eye-patch for BamBam made specifically by Calvin Klein with a picture of Fred and Wilma’s daughter, Pebbles, on it.  Wilma hugs BamBam when she brings over his new eye patch and says, “Anything. Anything you need. We will take care of it for you.” Fred rolls his eyes at Barney, and Barney sighs and shakes his head. Betty and Wilma both cry at how adorable BamBam looks with his new eye patch. Barney buys BamBam a new car, specially designed for people with one eye. Wilma finds out and calls Betty, asking how much the car was. Betty says they are making payments on the car of $450/month for the next 4 years. Wilma writes Betty a check for $450, and sends her one every month for the next 8 months.

Eight months after the judgment was rendered, BamBam is discovered to have more damage to his head than originally thought. He loses sight in his other eye and now is totally blind. BamBam’s parents sue Fred and Wilma again for personal injury, but the case is thrown out as the first case already decided the injury case. Fred refuses to pay more to BamBam, and he takes the checkbook away from Wilma when he discovers she’s been making BamBam’s car payments. The two families stop speaking to each other. BamBam throws away his now useless eyepatch and becomes despondent. His dreams of being a drag racer seem to be over. BamBam’s attorney refiles the case, this time on grounds that Wilma’s statement to Betty was a binding contract that requires that Wilma pay any remaining damages to BamBam, for the remainder of his life.

Was Wilma’s statement a binding contract? Using the law of contracts, explain why or why not.  Does BamBam’s age have anything to do with your answer? Can Fred be bound by the potential contract Wilma may have entered into? Use the law of agency to explain your answer to that question. Did Wilma’s purchase of the eye-patch give BamBam a greater leg to stand on in court? What about the car payments she made? Explain fully your answer to these questions.

(Points : 40)



5. TCO I. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, “Why an International Code of Ethics would be good,” which was assigned to be read at the beginning of the course. As you have worked throughout this session, you should have considered this article and how it may or may not have impacted different situations in the world economic/business/legal/political environments. The essay you will write on the next question should show that you have read Marianne’s article and can apply her theories and thoughts from that article to the scenario provided. Feel free to rely on the information you know about the situations (if real) or analogize to another one, if you wish. Include in your answer at least two specific concepts from Marianne’s article, and apply those concepts to your reasoning in your answer. You will be graded on your knowledge of the article as well as the application of ethical theories to international situations.

In 2009–10, Toyota experienced a troubling “gas pedal” sticking issue, which impacted its global reputation and income and caused it to stagger in its, until then, position as one of the top, world-wide, respected, and best-selling car companies on the globe. Over the first few months of the crisis, Toyota waffled on its message to its customers, both denying and then accepting responsibility for the issue. Research into the situation shows that the problem had been brought to its attention for a long time and either ignored, disbelieved, or grudgingly accepted, depending on the time and place of the issue.

For this question, think about the facts of the Toyota recall and its impact on Toyota car owners worldwide, including the value (or loss thereof) of customer’s trade-ins, car dealer’s business valuation losses, loss in used car sales to used car dealers and owners, and also the loss of lives and injuries to those who were grossly impacted by the gas pedal issue. Also, think about the cost to stockholders and the other stakeholders involved. Now think about Marianne Jenning’s international code of ethics article. Would an international code of ethics have impacted how this entire Toyota travesty played out in the real world? What if the “world of business” had agreed to one? Would Toyota have been somehow required to behave differently, which would have protected so many stakeholders from losses and people from injury? Or, would nothing really have changed? Feel free to argue both sides of this, and include in your answer, please, at least two or three things you would have included (or Marianne Jennings recommended to include) in an international code of ethics and how that would (or wouldn’t) really have impacted the Toyota crisis. Evaluate, analyze, and synthesize your answer using everything you have learned this session about ethics, law, politics, and business.

(Points : 40)


TCO A. Use the fact pattern you received in the above Marianne Jennings “International Code of Ethics” question to answer this question. Analyze and propose a solution to the problem you received above using the front page of the newspaper method. Show the steps, apply the facts, and provide a proposed solution you would suggest. (Points : 40)

Views(63) Opinions(0) 09/03/2016 16:02:41 Report abuse
Copyright © 2014 . All the right reserved.